IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

I'm not sure what your point is. It appears to be that legislation without representation is a good thing because look at what all these evil things elected representatives have done, but . . . legislation without representation doesn't actually exist except as a figment of fevered conservative minds because all these policies are actually "in" the U.S. Constitution if you just look "actively" enough. And thank the goddess for enlightened Supreme Court justices because where would we be without them?

Is that a fair summary of the points you're making?

Totalitarianism: a political system in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

MikeN wrote:And of course in decrying 'judicial activism' good conservatives all strenuously oppose the Supreme's activism against legislatively- established precedents in Bush v Gore...?

Just curious. How was the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore an example of judicial activism?

As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

MikeN wrote:And of course in decrying 'judicial activism' good conservatives all strenuously oppose the Supreme's activism against legislatively- established precedents in Bush v Gore...?

Just curious. How was the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore an example of judicial activism?

I'd be interested in the answer to that one as well. What hitherto undiscovered "constitutional principle" was plucked out of the living Constitution ether by evil, right-wing jurists in an effort to deny Al Gore the presidency and thwart the will of Florida's elected representatives?

Totalitarianism: a political system in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

I have always wondered who was advising Gore. While it is obvious why he would want to choose to have a recount in only four counties, had he asked for the whole state to be recounted, would he have in fact won and was this not the crux of the Supreme Court decision? selective choice? as opposed to a statewide uniform recount?

Winston Smith wrote:There is an "experiment" in government going on in the U.S aimed at remedying the weaknesses of representative government but silent coup is probably a better term. Year by year the Supreme Court is gradually usurping the policy making power of elected representatives on the theory that some nebulous "living Constitution" gives them a greater mandate to make public policy than the will of the people -- which we all "know" is corrupt, venal and incapable of making rational decisions. The "living Constitution", of course, being nothing more than a euphemism for the personal philosophies of each Supreme Court justice.

Consequently an unelected, unaccountable politburo of "intellectually and morally superior progressives" is gradually supplanting the legislative branch's power to make public policy and there's little that can be done about it because there's no effective check on the power of the judicial branch to exercise what is euphemistically called "judicial activism" other than its own self restraint, "judicial activism" being another pleasant sounding euphemism for legislation without representation.

Consequently Supreme Court justice confirmation hearings are where the real future course of the nation is decided which is why they have become so contentious. The only barrier to the establishment of the "golden age of judicial activism" and a "living Constitution" form of government being the damnable habit of the American people to elect presidents who won't surrender all nine slots on America's nascent politburo to its "progressive elite."

Your train of thought is somewhat hard for me to follow. You are upset that the Supreme Court is gradually subverting the constitutional order, and your solution to this is to obliterate the constitutional order by eliminating judicial review? And, to engage in a vague but extreme-sounding democratic "experiment" in complete defiance of our republican tradition? You will restore the tradition by turning to "pure" democracy?

In any case, a number of conservative political theorists, as I recall, back in the '90s suggested that the Congressional power to impeach and remove Supreme Court justices was so extreme that it would likely never be used and that the Framers should have established a process that would allow a super-majority of some kind to overturn specific Supreme Court rulings or that Supreme Court justices should be given renewable terms of 12 years (i.e., double a Senator's term) instead of lifelong tenure. Might there be some more nuanced way of curbing Supreme Court power rather than engaging in an "experiment"?

Outside of the federal government, the States were always the entities most likely to be able to generate opposition to Supreme Court rulings, but the democratization of the Senate did a lot to cripple state power, so I don't see how further democratization is going to solve whatever problems you have with the Court.

It seems fair to point out that the Courts have, rather ironically, done an incredible amount to democratize America, particularly on the question of race. "One man, one vote" is an invention of the Supreme Court, as far as I am aware. I guess my question is, would you characterize yourself primarily as a constitutionalist or a democrat? It might be easier for me to understand your point of view.

fred smith wrote:I have always wondered who was advising Gore. While it is obvious why he would want to choose to have a recount in only four counties, had he asked for the whole state to be recounted, would he have in fact won and was this not the crux of the Supreme Court decision? selective choice? as opposed to a statewide uniform recount?

I think the Supreme Court decision was that the Florida Supreme Court was violating the equal protection clause by arbitrarily restricting a recount to those four counties, that voters in those counties were getting preferential treatment, and that a statewide recount in compliance with the expressed will of the Florida legislature would be the only way to remedy the situation but that because time was of the essence, the clock had effectively already run out and that therefore no recount could be admitted.

I am sure someone here can summarize it more precisely than that, but I think that was the gist. If that recount had been allowed, every local and state branch of both parties would have fought every election in the courts from then on. The whole myth of the sanctity of elections would have been undermined. And, we are still talking about it, so it has been. The 2004 Taiwanese election had the same feel about it.

Ultimately, I took the Court's decision to mean "next time, don't come running to us to decide or legislate elections", which is why they came up with the much maligned formula of denying that the decision formed any precedent. I am trying to figure out what alternatives they had. If they had stood on some sort of constitutional principle and said, "the votes in X" must be recounted, we would have had an endless war about how and where they should have been recounted, and inevitably one side or the other would say 'we was robbed'. It was probably one of the best/worst decisions the Court ever made. A completely extra-constitutional, judicially active rejection of judicial interference in the democratic process.

Alkibiades wrote:Your train of thought is somewhat hard for me to follow. You are upset that the Supreme Court is gradually subverting the constitutional order, and your solution to this is to obliterate the constitutional order by eliminating judicial review? . . .

So I "want to eliminate judicial review" do I? Ha, ha, ha. You weren't breast fed as a baby, were you?

Okay. Cartoon version of the point I'm making:

"Judicial review" is a euphemism for legislation without representation.

Totalitarianism: a political system in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

fred smith wrote:Just thought that I would revisit this thread and note that... hmmmm... apprarently surprise surprise... no Ron Paul did not get the nomination... No... nope... nada...

O ye of little faith! It's still all going according to the master plan. Once Romney realizes that he can't win, he will call for Ron Paul to step in AND SAVE AMERICA. Then, using party regulations so obscure they haven't even been considered by those with merely double- or triple-digit IQs, RON PAUL WILL BECOME THE GOP NOMINEE AND LEAD THE UNIVERSE TO FREEDOM AND GREATER USE OF THE SHIFT-LOCK KEY!

Also, after the election, the GOP will also doubtlessly declare Paul honorary nominee for life.

FRIENDLY REMINDER Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.